Looking forward to that. Fyi, Tom Murphy just had a blog series on human population and he showed that even as early as the late 2030s we may see the the peak, even accounting for Africa continuing its rise.
It took a long time to get to this topic. I know people in the west are hesitant to talk about this because, i have been told, it reminds them of eugenics. But the human population is a problem and trust me, we in the most populated regions are suffering the most. I will post a detailed comment on the condition of women and its link to population. For now I will give just one fact to chew on- UN numbers show that almost half the pregnancies in the world are unintended. Yes, some are pleasant surprises for happy couples, but the majority are not
23 countries are going to lose half their populations over the next 80 years, the world had 400% growth the last 80 years, it will be lucky to be 40% the next 80. I would like the option explored that we could be at peak destruction, China for example is due to lose 600 million, Japan another 50 million and this is the reason I feel that govts haven't done anything regarding global warming, but as population declines they will take the credit. Add : While I understand higher numbers will mean high levels of consumption, poverty that is coming and the countries that consume the most losing high consumers is going to have an effect. Africa though with the possibility of being almost half the world and money pumping could mean things don't change but green energy could be what power's them, we don't have the copper to make electric vehicles for them but we also don't have the materials for ice cars. 20% of our energy being electricity, the worlds largest irrigated crop is the lawn, we could go through massive change but hope does persist and change isn't happening now because to most people there is no emergent response as they are kept ignorant by their own governments/systems. 90% of people don't fully realise the problem, by design.
I always thought that global population will peak in a couple decades and then drop by about one billion per decade before leveling off at around 2 billion ish people by centuries end. All the while aging being a thing of the past this decade based on presently accumulated research
None of these interviews shock me anymore. Infact, it's refreshing to see honest, open discussion of the mess we're in and what possibly lays in store.
"We are a depressed bunch" GM has been telling us for 15 years, the published data says humans may be gone by 2026. I can see that in the arctic ice extent plot.
Agreed. Hey Nate, we want the controversial stuff. A lot of the more touchy-feely episodes are hard to watch. This is exactly the content I subscribed for. Please don't get to high on hopium with the touchy-feely episodes. Push those guests harder with more difficult questions. We don't have time to kiss the butts of the guests.
I often did the same while attempting to teach university students on the severity of these topics. Now it seems time to move beyond grief and guilt and coddling: biodiversity is in collapse, war and conflict are rampant, we are tracking beyond worst case scenario in even the most pessimistic models. Progressive solutions don't seem to be emerging from the cultures stuck in grief. The situation reminds me of a bit of dialog in a film written by Cormac McCarthy: "...when it comes to grief, the normal rules of exchange do not apply, because grief transcends value. A man would give entire nations to lift grief off his heart. And yet, you cannot buy anything with grief, because grief is worthless..." Find fun ways to preserve, protect, restore a bit of biodiversity and prepare for things to change very rapidly.
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to care about what society has deemed important-one's career, the accumulation of wealth, the promotion of status-when our chasing of these pursuits is tied directly to the "highest magnitude mass extinction event that has ever occurred in the history of planet Earth." It's especially daunting given that some attention to these pursuits is necessary to survive within the system that we live. These last few years have felt like an eternity. I've been anxiously waiting for something to breakthrough and correct our trajectory. Unfortunately, I'm not sure any one thing will make us change course. Our civilization will doggedly persist until the damage done to our planet is irreversible. We've been brought into this world during the beginning phases of an apocalypse. One set in to motion by our forebears, a bunch of clever, but ultimately thoughtless apes. The reality of our situation is beyond absurd.
History shows all civilizations end when the resource propping it up dwindles. Whether that resource is Crops, Gold, Youth, faith, soil nitrogen, etc etc etc. Always an evolving system that booms and busts as needed. Rome fell to many things, the Caliphates fell, the great Bronze age civilizations fell and yet here we still be. Love of oil(energy), easy money, and cheap resources isn't really new. All we can do is ride the wave and make the best choices we can.
You said it, bud. Couldn't agree more. Even worse, that the pursuit of those vain pleasures and satisfactions, are only facilitated because we live in and have built this incredibly destructive industrial society. What would a career even mean, and the money/status secured, without this society itself? What would there even be to pursue? All of our lives, our sense of ourselves, our hopes and dreams and fears, and certainly our material fortunes, all utterly and intimately bound up in and beholden to this doomed technological world. It's definitely a bit overwhelming that first dawning awareness of something so heavy. Easy to understand the strong impulse to deny it or run from it....
The question is how to turn it around when govts in power only care about business. Money is debt incurred by bankers and governments, we all clamour for it because ancient people said gold was the flesh of Ra and people received a benefit when giving it those in power. How many people will refuse pay rises, how many people will stop working or earning to a basic level only. Unless the dollar collapses and we change to a system of say carbon value of things, money will always be a ticket to energy and how many people are emitting half the energy than they did ten, twenty etc years ago? Not many by choice.
Former hospice nurse here. We had a joke that Americans think that death is optional. One thing parents can do for their kids is to be honest with them about death -- pets, grandparents, other relatives, family friends. Our kids spent time with their dying grandparents, and were at the deaths of 2 of them. When their dad was dying, they were able to be present with it. I see that it really helps them in their lives. My 2 cents.
I'd say some people have very serious problems with facing and coping with reality and our culture is not really helping them to turn into the right direction.
I’m in nursing training right now, partially due to listening to Nate (who I found via Daniel Schmachtenberger and not the other way around, interestingly enough) and I’m very interested in palliative care and perhaps becoming a death doula. I think we’re in for a lot of pain and aren’t ready for it.
Dear Cory. I´m so grateful to you for saying these things out loud, especially from your position. I hope your message reaches and sinks in with people far and wide. Climate science too often doesn´t consider the interplay between the biosphere and the other Earth systems, which is really frustrating to biologists, ecologists and the likes. We did our PhDs at Otago University at the same time, but I had lost sight of you.. congrats on your amazingly prolific career. More of this, Nate, we need to hear what´s really going on and what´s likely to be in the pipeline, or else we tend to downplay the severity and urgency of the situation.
For every 1 human baby born today, there are 570+ other babies born onto farms to use resources and be prematurely killed. 925 million humans (1 in 9) suffer from hunger, yet 80 billion unnaturally bred animals on farms are given enough human edible food that could support 4 billion humans directly. -University of Minnesota
Nate, you continue to bring on guests who combine both head and heart, in stunningly powerful ways. Corey Bradshaw is a perfect example of a brilliant scientist with a huge heart, and perspectives that are both sobering and paradoxically inspiring at the same time. For me, the only kind of hope that works, is intelligent hope. Hope that considers the facts, the deep and beautiful mysteries, together with what is actually possible. I'm reminded of a brilliant poet, Wendell Berry who famously said: "When despair for the world grows in me and I wake in the night at the least sound in fear of what my life and my children’s lives may be, I go and lie down where the wood drake rests in his beauty on the water..." Lastly, I am totally down with Corey's 3 practical suggestions: ...reduce child mortality, get rid of public companies, and make political donations illegal... (Let these three, be...)
Thank you Nate. It's refreshing to listen to like minded people. Corey is fantastic. I am also an older white man from a rich country. About 15 or 20 years older than you two. But, I am not wealthy or intellectual. In fact I have a severe learning disability and I have been in the labor force for most of my life. I think you under estimate people like me. We are actually more open to the fact that mankind has screwed up. Maybe you could take a few steps down the ladder and target people that are less educated but, more likely to accept the situation. Most highly educated people are profit driven and are insulted by everything you speak of. Hourly wage folks understand we are all getting screwed 😅
thank you for saying that... it can be easy to forget about how many smart caring wonderful people there really are on this planet.... these things need to be talked about. the more people that know, the better chance we have of surviving
That's an excellent point. The people who have the least to lose (perceptively) are probably going to be more open to this information and more inclined to share it.
Thanks, I remembered the human population growth curves were not affected by war & pandemics, a counterintuitive; this time, I heard how it works in reality.
Billionaires, like Elon Musk, are pursing the opposite strategy. They keep saying the biggest enemy is 'population collapse', and are fighting to expand the human population. Their theory has become widely accepted. Many nations are now pursuing programs to increase birthrates to protect their individual economies. It seems counterproductive.
It's one of many topics that people in government positions etc. generally don't want to address, but it has been addressed by many. Generally accepted views are always at least decades or sometimes centuries lagging behind the frontier of knowledge and wisdom. Too bad governments generally have to please the ignorant majority, so they have to lag behind too in their views, or they'll get no votes.
Thank you Nate and Corey, my heartfelt gratitude for this episode's insights on the rapid decline in biodiversity and the impact of human overpopulation (boom = bust). Corey, your analysis on how the Earth’s carrying capacity has been exceeded, and the dire consequences of continued overconsumption, was both enlightening and sobering. As you noted, “Even if we live in a completely eco-friendly way and have very low per capita consumption... we will still take resources until they’re gone.” This stark truth shows the necessity for immediate and substantial efforts to reduce our ecological footprint and to exist within planetary boundaries. Nate, your ability to facilitate such interesting and deep conversations and bring these critical topics to the forefront is needed. The discussion around the domino effect of species loss and its impact on the biosphere highlights the interconnectedness of our actions and the ecosystems health. As Corey mentioned, “We’re already seeing signs that the sixth mass extinction is underway,” which serves as a powerful call to action for all of us. Regarding Donella Meadows’ work on leverage points, I found several key points from her article highly relevant to our current socio-environmental challenges: Meadows stressed the importance of shifting our underlying paradigms to effect real change. She noted, “The shared idea in the minds of society, the great big unstated assumptions... constitute that society’s paradigm, or deepest set of beliefs about how the world works”. This suggests there is an immense influence of collective beliefs and assumptions on shaping societal behaviours and structures. It highlights that to enact significant and lasting change, it's essential to challenge and shift these deep-seated paradigms. By altering the foundational beliefs that drive our actions, we can nature a the future we can envisage in our wisest of moments. Meadows highlighted the importance of Changing the goals of a system as a powerful leverage point. By redefining the ultimate objectives that guide system behaviour, we can fundamentally alter how the system operates and its outcomes. For example, shifting from a goal of economic growth to one of sustainability (not sustainable growth, or sustainable development) can redirect resources and efforts towards desired future scenarios. Your discussion touched on these principles, which inspires me to take actions within my community, to both challenge the business as usual paradigm and to offer alternative frameworks and narratives to strengthen neural networks that make the new paradigm that much more attainable. Thank you both for providing such a rich discussion.
As goals, why settle for "sustainability"? I propose health, wholeness, the healed, hale and the holy -- etymologically from one root. We seem to be blind to the obvious.
Ive never really seen anyone add significantly to the basic observations on overpopulation that almost anyone with a basic HS science education can make.
Thank you Nate for that interview. In my opinion, Corey articulated ecological, population, economic and political summaries that were amazingly clear, scientifically grounded, and ethically framed - of the 45-50 TGSs I have watched, his "maps" of the terrain were the best for my purposes - like my generation's paper topo maps - drawings of the terrain, not successive pixelations of the view. I was flatout gobsmacked. Thank you both.
Perhaps the top podcast of The Great Simplification yet. I love taking the Deep Time, Big Picture perspective. It is fascinating! And I have no illusions that our species is so special, to the contrary.
Great honest chat about the biggest issue our species fast. Too damn many of us - like a horde of locusts that consume food, minerals, plants life , soil etc. Will be listening a second time soon. Thanks Nate for a fascinating guest and education
Congratulations for getting that core issue, that deal breaker of all deal breakers that needs to be understood on a planetary scale, but gets the scantest of discussion.
The behaviours are what disheartens me the most. A true Rat Race, only worse. One look at the behaviours of 'israel', being fully funded by the USA and supported by major nations, at the political level, I think guarantees the dismal fate of humanity. We do not deserve to exist. Look at what we do. What we fail to stop. It is so shameful.
TGS being prefaced with a triggerwarning, makes me long for the days when my ignorance was omnipresent and the feeling of bliss glorious. I am undecided yet which feels worse - then, now or the combination of both?
The fact that trigger warnings are given is a statement on a society which is "entitled" to always have good feelz. With that frame of mind I can not see a healthy smooth transition to civilisational trauma to come can be realised. It seems that a trail of tears is our future for our too easily triggered helicoptered pampered population. We breed victims today instead of resilient people.
Wow. Just wow. Every TGS interview is five star quality and urgency in my book. But this one , with the key points made by Corey, especially the three top priorities he outlines including his magic wand answer, put this in the top three all-time interview episodes.
Why are we talking about replacement rate? Don't we need to shrink and not maintain a population level that is currently causing climate and ecosystem destruction?
Pollution and ecosystem destruction? Yes. Climate change? F no. We are coming out of the last ice age. Of course things are going to warm on their own. Co2 is a good thing btw, if you want plants to grow and food to eat. Quit buying the propaganda meant to eliminate you.
Technically, we have more than enough resources to maintain a population 3x what it is now. The problem isn't resource shortage. Wealth and resource distribution and systematic corruption is the problem. We've lost our purpose in favour of materialistic consumerism. We are nothing but money farms for the elite.
great conversation. recognizing corporations as the dark triad monstrosities that they are. 'stock markets are the single worst invention of humankind'
Ive not invested because I felt it was the embodiment of ‘Money is the Root of all Evil’ it’s just never looked right too me, just legalized gambling 😢
@@pinchebruha405 Same with investing in gold or silver: the worst hard rock mining is for gold, silver, uranium. Don't support any of these toxic INDUSTRIAL systems. On an already collapsing biosphere, the least we can do!
I am from British Columbia and absolutely concur with his analysis that trappers had a vested interest in maintaining natural habitat. It was a huge mistake killing the Canadian fur trade because it removed trappers from the land leaving it wide open to industrial exploitation. It is a pattern repeated again and again, remove from the land those that earn their life from the land so that industrial exploitation has free reign.
the first military fort in my area - the men who built it were eating six pounds of meat a day!! They quickly extirpated the local wildlife - relying on the native hunters to supply the meat. The fur trade devolved to lower value animals - and the native hunters were finally forced to eat muskrats. Northwest Fur company for James Jacob Astor was based on definitely over-exploiting the wildlife with alcohol used to destroy local standards of respecting wildlife.
How did removing trappers that would not have been able to supply current humanity leave it open for industrial exploitation, businesses that we are the customers of?
The word Forest is derived from an old Latin term meaning area set apart for harvest from nature. Mostly that would be hunting, but also that "forest" could be used to fatten pigs on acorns and nuts. The local noble man would own the rights and license whoever could come to hunt or feed farm animals. Stands of trees that fits not have this kind of protection, would be overexploited, become craggy and disappear. That's why Forest in the long term become synonymous with large stand of trees. There wouldn't be any other woods with big trees left. Reckon the same will happen with all nature areas that have no formal terms of protection - in particular, in the Global South
@@davehendricks4824 yeah I visited the most traditional Berber village in Morocco in 1997 - they just gone one light bulb per adobe house for a couple hours of electricity each night. Otherwise - totally self-reliant using humanure composting to grow wheat and vegetables in the desert for thousands of years!! Now Morocco and Spain have severe drought and the famine will kick in fast. They think rain harvesting will save them? Tragic. All our high-tech freedom has caused Mother Nature to take revenge - unleashing the 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane in the world's largest ocean shelf while the scientists wax nostalgic.
So,so relevant,the exchange at the hour mark. I’ve felt it(as I’m sure many others have) for years,how to emotionally handle the doom of our collective malaise)..truly a pertinent topic. Thanks
Thanks guys. Totally on target on need for women's health and education. Plenty of my African women friends do not want huge families, but it can be culturally hard to pull that off due to family pressures from husband and parents. Also, felt encouraged by the message to do what you can to reduce the demise of life.
Excellent discussion. Unlike what you propose, Nate, the knowing is hugely beneficial for me. It has helped change my perspective on the world and my own life and how I spend my time. Would you tell someone with terminal cancer they have cancer if there was absolutely nothing that could be done for it? Of course! We all have the right to face the truth if we are willing. I am not a believer in lying to people in order to keep the populace orderly.
Hi Nate, thanks for this chat (as a fellow Aussie it was nice to hear such a validating perspective which is so rare in this country). For the population round table please consider Nandita Bajaj - an eloquent university professor and podcaster like yourself 👍
I'm a lay person who understands the gravity of what's happening, an people. Wonder why I'm just skeptic that humanity will change.....it's difficult not allowing depression to overwhelm you, anyways great discussion thank you !
the incredible unbelievable delicate balance in such mind boggling complexity is jaw dropping to reflect on - how the hell did all of this come together?
Here in the US, we humans are paving over farmlands and wildlands at ever faster and faster rates! Our cities sprawl across ever bigger swaths of the landscape. And, we are using more and more resources, so the ecological footprints of our cities, the amount of farmland and forests grazing land and fish habitat grow bigger every year.
1% of the area of the earth is considered built up, the production of cement sure but cities per se over farmland is not the issue. There is the same amount of energy in a tank of diesel than my entire electrical consumption over an Australian summer, actually 3.2 months, with the air con going 24/7. Driving and our consumption of oil, that all our lives revolve around is. Going for a Sunday drive does far more damage than people seem to realise. A person could live off grid and if they drive to the city or get their goods delivered they are doing worse than the people who live in the city and walk to the market.
Fabulous interview with Corey Bradshaw. Reducing child mortality(a revelation), educating women, ending corporations, stock exchanges and political donations, making family planning and contraception widely available to get our population down to around two billion around mid 1900 numbers in one century without human caused and natural disasters would make life great for all life. I like to say, there is no poverty in a healthy ecosystem. Thanks for a most important interview. BTW, Elon and CEOs want population growth not only for their economic growth but also for cheaper labor.
reform per your list will never happen. Tragedy of the Commons. overpopulation will get worse until there is die off. Paul Ehrlich etc suggested 2 billion humans was a sustainable limit which was estimated to be the world population ~ 1970.
I'd push the button. People may be full of worry already, but you can only worry about so much at a time. Better to be worried about the reality of global heating and extinction than things that don't matter nearly as much.
In my experience, the problem of population is the hardest sell for most people. Even people who know about how some invasive species can decimate ecosystems. They just don’t want to consider the possibility that they shouldn’t have so many kids, or consume at will.
Humans are the original invasive feral species. It's sad that even environmentalists do not see humans as part of the eco system as a free floating detached species.
Look around yourself. How many people have two kids or more. I bet not many, unless you live in Sub-Saharan Africa. The demographic crisis that we are fast approaching is far more serious for the humankind than the ecological problems.
@@manichaean1888 Nothing is more important than the ecological problems. We can’t live without a functioning ecosystem. The infinite growth model that is capitalism is not a sustainable long term plan. Things are going to change, whether the economists like it or not. You’ve got bigger things to worry about than some supposed demographic crisis.
This is one of the very best discussions ever on this podcast, on this topic. I’m going to listen again. I was surprised to hear talk about the fairly distant future: 100(s) of years or so. My sources anticipate major collapse of civilization and human life in decades. When you take atmospheric science, feedback loops, and the exponential function into consideration it seems that we could witness it all going down ourselves, in this current lifetime. Buckle up! Hang on to your hats!
Nat's pronunciation of Flinders's Uni quite amusing, as an Adelaide resident myself. The fact that trigger warnings have to issued because some point of view "may hurt our feelz" is a sad indictment of our society. In the approach to civilisational collapse it is imperative that stoicism be taught in school at all level and that we cease rewarding and encouraging entitlement and victimhood.
Y’all, I’m so far down the rabbit hole on this, that I’ve become a total dysfunctional mess. I cry almost daily. I don’t know how to process any of this, or stomach it. So much grief. I’ve lost people-I’ve felt personal grief-but this seems so different. How do I get out of bed and be present for my life and the lives of friends and family? I simply don’t know how.
It can be so hard to feel the grief without falling into despair. I found local, super small scale action to be what helps me. Something I have control over. Planting one seed. Doing one small good deed for a neighbour.
@@dereksnyder_4244 seems banned from commenting on channel. But worth a last try here in your case. ♡World is not Ending♡ Era of Weedy Species of Impermanence not of the 《Bear Eagle Wolf 》
The immensity of collective human impact on this paradise planet and all life on it is overwhelming to any who even begin to look. As individuals, what can we do? I cope only by 'doing things' that are within my realm of influence. I think of it like this- Humans have been the agents of destruction, instead, become students of Life. The energy of 'Life' is to grow and reproduce. A single tree has the potential to set seed for hundreds more. In its lifetime, it is home to thousands of insects, birds, micro-organisms, it changes the temperature, wind direction, soil type, water holding capacity etc. If you only plant one tree, you have set in motion the future growth of possibly millions of life forms- a small action echoing into eternity.
There is no way out. It has been obvious to people long back in the 1960's that the planet was a limited resource. Many of us have been fighting to change the direction of progress as long as we have been alive. It has been gut wrenching watching every bit of deep ecosystem develop into places humans could access and ruin
THANK YOU - @Team for having this important conversation. Catastrophe is unavoidable. In fact, it is already here. Yes - empower women everywhere! - every child not born is one that neither contributes to #collapse, nor suffers from it. Everybody has the right to know - #TalkCollapse
Cats were domesticated 10 or so thousand years ago, we didn't invent cats, they have been around 10-12 million years. Cats being carnivorous mammals that can have three litters a year with up to 12 kittens, average being four so 12 a year is different to humans.
This is such a difficult topic, it's essential to tread carefully. Not for fear of triggering emotions, but for fear of utilitarian "solutions" to this issue. It's very easy to end up in Dystopia by trying to solve this problem using our left hemisphere, as McGilchrist would say.
I prefer to know the truth of our predicament no matter how dark or foreboding. That isn't true of many people but their feelings should not take precedence over biophysical reality. If you were a passenger in a car that was careening into an obvious accident, you would at least try to communicate that fact to the driver. Their ability to maintain cheerful optimism would not be your primary concern.
In my opinion it is our systems not humans. The lawn is the worlds largest irrigated crop, that we water with filtered water, fertilise and trim with a fossil fuel machine, so it looks nice..
@@TheGhungFu Humans are products of their environment, just like any other creature, and if system change was implemented would you blame or congratulate them? I think blaming humans for being humans is defeatist, it makes people think there is nothing we can do as this is the way it's always been instead of looking forward to what is possible.
@@antonyjh1234 Yup, overpopulation is secondary to our "civilised" way of living. It's characterised by obscene levesl of energy throughput and toxic levels of consumption. We in "first world" countries live as if there are 5-10 biospheres, and the only one here, is in collapse at rates never seen before. As pointed out by Corey and Nate right here! WCASAFU (We "civilised" are soooooooo absolutely f**ked up!)
@@antonyjh1234Here we go...an apologist for humans !! Visited Gaza lately ? Done a tour of the 'israeli' torture Camps at all ? Blaming it on "grass" How pathetically ignorant.
There's a major issue that comes with a reducing population beyond capitalist profits. The pension/social security needs of a country is met by its current workers through taxes. If we have more people of pensionable age, and less younger people, a larger slice of the governmental pension/social payments burden falls on each worker. So you either have to tax people far more, or let your old people die. This is a massive issue facing all developed countries that I don't really hear anyone talking about.
There is so much tax money going to fund war mongers, and bureaucrats. Divert the money where it's needed instead of wasting it. The US alone spends a trillion tax dollars on war. It's no secret.
The healthiest attitude for me is to accept that there is not much I can do. And even as a near vegan, I don’t really want to care about the other cute creatures that Nate seems too concerned about. There is not enough bandwidth in anyone to include everything it even a small portion of what is ailing our planet. Life ends in death for everyone. I have a few years to live and I didn’t sign up for this. I will use all the energy and resources I need while I am alive and what happens in the distant future doesn’t concern me. Again I want to remind those who are depressed about whatever the future holds: you are not going stop the sun from eventually cooking the earth; nobody is going to be able to stop the next ice age or severe pandemic; and life is too short to cry about what can’t be avoided.
From the perspective of a geographer I think we need to understand that it will become increasingly important for people to regain a sense of "place". The answers are very geographically variable. We may get depressed that we don't have much control over the global situation but we can discover the best ways to live comfortably in our own local environment when we tune out the outside voices and listen to our own "place". There is no one right way. In defense of cats, we need to be all like them and just do our own thing. Diversity equals resilience. No sense bickering over city vs rural, etc. High rises may work someplaces while some places require you to spread out more. If you created a law requiring every new building to be self sufficient in terms of energy, water, and waste you would find out real quick what the environmental limits of any given place are and also spur new inventions. Scaling up is not always the answer. Things can be good with a little imagination.
Great interview!! Corey needs to be on again. And Nate, just look at the comments from your fans... people want to hear about this stuff (even though you dont)
Everything will always balance out. To fear things is a waste of time and a waste of what little life we get to enjoy. Be grateful for the time you're given, don't be emotional when it's taken away.
A person of average intelligence with this knowledge is likely to feel some responsibility to preserve our biodiversity (species & total numbers) where possible, within any practical constraints that might be imposed upon them.
43:47 Why would we not expect a vast reduction in insects based on the windshield evidence? Millions of grim reaper devices (cars and trucks) at high speed combing the area above roads seems sure to cause a drastic reduction in insect populations over time.
The percentage of world area that is roadway is 0.3%. 99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is 100klm/62 mile high, the move towards crop foods which require huge amounts of pesticides would be much more detrimental than CO2 as it all stays in this tiny sliver of area. Synthetic fertilisers, herbicides affect groundwater and crops which are virtual deserts for insects are grown in huge tonnages, far more than what we grow for animals.
@@leonstenutz6003 And here in Australia bush fires of the intensity and regularity we are now getting them have decimated our insect population. We lost 60 billion in 2020.
Corey's description of population growth in a high child mortality world is very interesting, competely not what I would have thought. This is so complex. Its like humanity does not exist in "one" society... it is always a superposition of many societies. And the society we see is the just the one that us pulled to the forefront by our environment.
that's the historical truth. poor farmers have tons of babies for free labor. So the higher the death rate, the higher the population growth rate to replace the loss. Same thing happened right after world war 2.
I'd disagree a bit with Corey Bradshaw and I'll say that it's not cognitive dissonance and an inability to cope with the doom that makes people ignore the climate disaster message. The problem is that the subject is heavily politicized. There is a counter-party which has roughly the same amount of credibility as the party promoting the climate change, that opposes your message and that destabilizes your credibility. The message is not unified and unanimously promoted by everyone in the political specter, it is only that some do this and those that do, have a different political color. The fact that a healthy part of the representatives of the capitalistic economical sector and BRICS countries (because they argue that the West uses this narrative to further hinder their development and make them depend on renewable technologies which are expensive and they are not ready for but on the other hand they have a lot of oil and gas extracting means and reserves) argue against the climate change narrative and distrust the research data saying that is incomplete or that is manipulation through misreading statistics and they bring they own research to prove you wrong. The climate change narrative from their perspective is labeled as another way mean to fight the hybrid asymmetrical war and a mean to make their camp miserable. They'll oppose you no matter what. Until everyone from the climate change group understands the reality, they won't be able to win over people but on the contrary, further lose support. It's a political problem, not a human idiosyncratic or species' denial mechanism of adaptation. The message has to be unified and has to come from everyone, the main stream, the political class more involved and with a heavy press communication from governments where they explain in simple terms to all people on all national media channels what it's happening, what we have to do, what measures the governments will take, what changes will be made to the private and economical sector. An overview of the situation and measures required would have to be transmitted weakly (not once in several months like it is now and also very incomplete), people would have to know and UNDERSTAND the changes and the path the government is taking. At this points some measures are being taken in the West but the communication is so poorly that it gives changes for the far-right parties to rise in popularity. Not the people are the problem, the communication campaign, and the parties in the opposition.
Reckon most people intuitively feel that things may be going of the rails sooner or .. even more soon. They choose not to look into it, but deal with situatiens as they arise. For the moment, climate change is "only" felt by those that suffer direct hits (be it fire, floods or drought) The rest only had to pay a bit extra for food inflation. The hard part - it may take another decade, may be two, before the hard serious stuff arises , a couple of worldwide crop failures, 3 500 year floods with in a decade, storm surges eating up land in badly protected areas. As long as folks aren't hit themselves, they can continue this "after me, the deluge" attitude. Once they are hit, they'll blame politici for not taking qualified measures. As for global South - they can't help having no decent media, but it still is bare bone survival and dealing with circumstances as they arise, as it had been for most of human existence
Great discussion. I have been, without having the scientific foundation to support it, preaching that we will probably survive as a species for a while but we are in for whole lot of hurt along the way. Sad in a way to hear that the science is starting agree but at the same time heartening to hear that others are thinking about this a deep level. Gives some hope that we might be able to mitigate the worst of it. Love the comments about youth. It matches the experience I have had with my children. Just trying to be decent human beings. Thanks for having the courage to confront the cognitive dissonance that has too date held us back. Even when it hurts, the benefits of education outweigh ignorance hands down.
Two reasons Dr. Bradshaw is a too optimistic about the future of life on earth: the aerosol masking effect and the ionizing radiation from the meltdown of every nuclear power plant on the planet. Namaste 😎🦋
Upside of industry dragging desulphurization out for half a century... Termination Shock is in staggered tenths of a degree. Ozone Layer holds 🛡 Lead time to orderly shut down of the nukes is outside my wheelhouse
@throrth seems Comment deleted so try a short factual point Aerosol demasking would have been a shock if had all stopped globally in say 1985. Went in stages by industry and country. Almost over. Not much left to unmask.
OMG, I am mourning already... Not for us humans, who have been so cruel and destructive, but for the rest of the species. I have reduced my consumerism to the bare basics of food and tools I need in my daily life, and that won't matter, but at least it helps my conscience. In my opinion, we deserve what's coming to us.
I've always kind of understood this since being about 12-13 years old (Born 1960). Increasingly distressing for me as you can see it happening around you.
This is a sad, ugly, even tragic overview of our future. I'm old and have had to listen to all the decades of denial. So yes, I'm angry ! Please keep true facts flowing . Thanks and... 👍 Rock on 🙂.
Especially when positing EUGENICS plans to "target fe!ales" (see the dehumanizing racist refusal to consider these as YOUNG WOMEN). That portion of the discussion is entirely disturbing and reprehensible). It's the people in the northern developed countries who are a problem for the planet. It's entirely appropriate that their numbers are decreasing.
I find it quite interesting that there's this common list of academics doing the rounds across many digital platforms. Ok it's a relatively small community overshoot/ecology/climate etc but why do so few academics engage with the general public? Ok sites like resilience have an extensive list to peruse through so maybe it's just a reflection of podcasts. Or are these core individuals not only great communicators but the cream of the crop in their respective fields. I definitely need to read more of Corey's work now that he's successfully vetted TGS high standards of credibility 😉
Very illuminating discussion. More math modellers please. "We've outsourced our wisdom to the market". "Reduce child mortality. Eliminate public companies, and political donations".
Bucky Fuller pointed out the way to change a system is to create a more attractive system in parallel. The attraction will draw in the needed resources. Fighting produces resistance. Throw a better party and watch what happens.
Of course, it's true that the evolutionary show of life must go on, maybe even after nuclear war. But to me, it's of little consolation. I can't get beyond my own sentimentality for the natural world we have known, and which is hanging on for dear life, despite our behavior. I love the current web of life, as if it were extensions of my own body.
Nate refers to the profit motive in a negative light. It seems to me that profit can be redefined by including nature on the balance sheet. Redefine profit to include ecological impact - positive and negative.
External Costs (Negative Externalities): These are costs imposed on others who are not directly part of the economic transaction. For example, pollution from a factory imposes health costs on the surrounding community, which are not reflected in the factory's production costs. Yes, if you and in all the externalities in the price *** profit will still work
As ardent says, the external costs of what we do are not factored in at present. The issue is if we still use money as a ticket to energy with zero controls on the carbon we are in trouble, Ideally in my mind we could change products to have a carbon value and that would change the amount of stuff we buy but profit for profits sake has to come to an end.
@@antonyjh1234 I would like to provide additional insight into the concept of externalities and introduce a related term, "tragedy of the commons." The term "tragedy of the commons," first articulated by William Forster Lloyd in 1833 and later popularized by Garrett Hardin in 1968, formalized the concept within the framework of economics and resource management. The concept of externalities, which refers to the costs or benefits incurred by third parties not directly involved in an economic transaction, has its origins in the early 19th century. Early economists such as French economist A. A. Cournot in 1838 and British economist Arthur Cecil Pigou in his 1920 work, The Economics of Welfare, explored these ideas. Pigou's formalization of externalities laid the groundwork for understanding their impact on market efficiency and the potential need for corrective measures. Unfortunately, governments have often allowed industries, including their own, to exploit common resources without accounting for these externalities, resulting in environmental degradation and unfair economic advantages. Such practices, frequently driven by greed and inadequate regulation, have led to widespread pollution and negative consequences for the global population. It is disheartening to see how political and economic systems can perpetuate these issues at the expense of public well-being. I first encountered these concepts in my first-year economics course in 1977. To claim that the government was unaware of these issues is both illogical and misguided; they were aware but chose to take no action. Blaming major oil companies is misplaced; they are simply responding to market (your and mine) demand.
These concepts ('externalities' and 'tragedy of the commons' ) not only apply to CO2 but all pollution these concept even all to all areas even of the economy including forestry and farming. We have know it has been a problem for years even before these concept were recognized in economics
at 1:13:00 about human pop growth. it was at this moment Nate realised we were f@#ked. jokes aside, the more i learn about biology and evolution the more i realise how modern medicine, increased human carrying capacity from FF and even agricultural revolution fundamentally changed the course of human futures. for a sustainable and healthy biosphere humans ultimately have a choice: to die by the same means as the rest of nature or to improve individual outcomes and result in collective overshoot. the biological drivers that have been so successful to our ancestors will induce us down this path towards overshoot. overcoming negative feedbacks was the fundamental game changer and FF are intricately intertwined with that. by the time negative feedbacks reassert their dominance i fear for what will remain of the rest of nature.
I've seen many examples of how jaw-droppingly stupid people can be (and I don't even want to exclude myself from that) and deny things that are as obvious as daylight, so these questions are rhetorical: How did population growth/size ever became a controversial topic when it comes to overshoot, climate change and so on? How can someone acknowledge these are real and not see that an ever increasing population is a main driver of that, to the point it becomes a taboo subject even within the United Nations, and someone writing about it receiving death threats??? It's just so, so, so painfully obvious and easy to understand. More people consume more and produce more waste. How obvious can it be? It makes me wanna scream in utter frustration.
What effect would be attained by adopting an age cut-off for expensive and resource hungry treatments for old people? I understand how contentious this statement is, but while we're talking...
Well if you start there, you might as well talk about forced sterilization. On the long run it will be sufficient to end humans. Thus, no one will accept any of these « solutions » because they will end out humane nature at the moment of the decision. This is a predicament not a problem as stated multiple times Nate. Then no single solution is sufficient. It’s complex and it feels not achievable (sorry if my English is broken, I’m not totally fluent)
Nate, an excellent interview that tells it like it is. During the interview there was a brief reference to the work of the IPCC and its understatement of the future risks/challenges we face and it would be really good to have a reality Roundtable on the IPCC models and process to try to understand why this understatement. It would also be good to look at the interaction of fossil fuel interests and the IPCC process, especially the COPs. Profs James Hansen and Kevin Anderson are both critical of the IPCC for various reasons. Leave it with you. Thanks.
I forgot to mention that, given the influence of the IPCC COPs on national governments, it is important to know why the IPCC process and reports are inadequate.
NB: my own take on human population will be in the AMA Frankly out this Friday morning
Looking forward to that. Fyi, Tom Murphy just had a blog series on human population and he showed that even as early as the late 2030s we may see the the peak, even accounting for Africa continuing its rise.
@@ryanswick yes Tom will be on the next Reality Roundtable discussing that - out in 3 weeks
It took a long time to get to this topic. I know people in the west are hesitant to talk about this because, i have been told, it reminds them of eugenics. But the human population is a problem and trust me, we in the most populated regions are suffering the most. I will post a detailed comment on the condition of women and its link to population. For now I will give just one fact to chew on- UN numbers show that almost half the pregnancies in the world are unintended. Yes, some are pleasant surprises for happy couples, but the majority are not
23 countries are going to lose half their populations over the next 80 years, the world had 400% growth the last 80 years, it will be lucky to be 40% the next 80. I would like the option explored that we could be at peak destruction, China for example is due to lose 600 million, Japan another 50 million and this is the reason I feel that govts haven't done anything regarding global warming, but as population declines they will take the credit.
Add : While I understand higher numbers will mean high levels of consumption, poverty that is coming and the countries that consume the most losing high consumers is going to have an effect.
Africa though with the possibility of being almost half the world and money pumping could mean things don't change but green energy could be what power's them, we don't have the copper to make electric vehicles for them but we also don't have the materials for ice cars.
20% of our energy being electricity, the worlds largest irrigated crop is the lawn, we could go through massive change but hope does persist and change isn't happening now because to most people there is no emergent response as they are kept ignorant by their own governments/systems. 90% of people don't fully realise the problem, by design.
I always thought that global population will peak in a couple decades and then drop by about one billion per decade before leveling off at around 2 billion ish people by centuries end. All the while aging being a thing of the past this decade based on presently accumulated research
None of these interviews shock me anymore. Infact, it's refreshing to see honest, open discussion of the mess we're in and what possibly lays in store.
It’s funny hearing Nate apologize for posting what makes me a subscriber.
"We are a depressed bunch" GM has been telling us for 15 years, the published data says humans may be gone by 2026. I can see that in the arctic ice extent plot.
@@StupidityindexI think Guy Mcpherson sees the collapse acceleration will be quicker than most expect.
Humans are soft.
Agreed. Hey Nate, we want the controversial stuff. A lot of the more touchy-feely episodes are hard to watch. This is exactly the content I subscribed for. Please don't get to high on hopium with the touchy-feely episodes. Push those guests harder with more difficult questions. We don't have time to kiss the butts of the guests.
I often did the same while attempting to teach university students on the severity of these topics. Now it seems time to move beyond grief and guilt and coddling: biodiversity is in collapse, war and conflict are rampant, we are tracking beyond worst case scenario in even the most pessimistic models. Progressive solutions don't seem to be emerging from the cultures stuck in grief. The situation reminds me of a bit of dialog in a film written by Cormac McCarthy: "...when it comes to grief, the normal rules of exchange do not apply, because grief transcends value. A man would give entire nations to lift grief off his heart. And yet, you cannot buy anything with grief, because grief is worthless..." Find fun ways to preserve, protect, restore a bit of biodiversity and prepare for things to change very rapidly.
Thank you, I feel the same way! @@Twisted_Cabage
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to care about what society has deemed important-one's career, the accumulation of wealth, the promotion of status-when our chasing of these pursuits is tied directly to the "highest magnitude mass extinction event that has ever occurred in the history of planet Earth." It's especially daunting given that some attention to these pursuits is necessary to survive within the system that we live.
These last few years have felt like an eternity. I've been anxiously waiting for something to breakthrough and correct our trajectory. Unfortunately, I'm not sure any one thing will make us change course. Our civilization will doggedly persist until the damage done to our planet is irreversible.
We've been brought into this world during the beginning phases of an apocalypse. One set in to motion by our forebears, a bunch of clever, but ultimately thoughtless apes. The reality of our situation is beyond absurd.
This
History shows all civilizations end when the resource propping it up dwindles. Whether that resource is Crops, Gold, Youth, faith, soil nitrogen, etc etc etc. Always an evolving system that booms and busts as needed.
Rome fell to many things, the Caliphates fell, the great Bronze age civilizations fell and yet here we still be.
Love of oil(energy), easy money, and cheap resources isn't really new.
All we can do is ride the wave and make the best choices we can.
You said it, bud. Couldn't agree more. Even worse, that the pursuit of those vain pleasures and satisfactions, are only facilitated because we live in and have built this incredibly destructive industrial society. What would a career even mean, and the money/status secured, without this society itself? What would there even be to pursue? All of our lives, our sense of ourselves, our hopes and dreams and fears, and certainly our material fortunes, all utterly and intimately bound up in and beholden to this doomed technological world. It's definitely a bit overwhelming that first dawning awareness of something so heavy. Easy to understand the strong impulse to deny it or run from it....
Well said. 👏👏👏💯
The question is how to turn it around when govts in power only care about business. Money is debt incurred by bankers and governments, we all clamour for it because ancient people said gold was the flesh of Ra and people received a benefit when giving it those in power. How many people will refuse pay rises, how many people will stop working or earning to a basic level only.
Unless the dollar collapses and we change to a system of say carbon value of things, money will always be a ticket to energy and how many people are emitting half the energy than they did ten, twenty etc years ago? Not many by choice.
Former hospice nurse here. We had a joke that Americans think that death is optional. One thing parents can do for their kids is to be honest with them about death -- pets, grandparents, other relatives, family friends. Our kids spent time with their dying grandparents, and were at the deaths of 2 of them. When their dad was dying, they were able to be present with it. I see that it really helps them in their lives. My 2 cents.
An excellent comment . it's not as if we are going to live forever. Nothing does.
Yeah it kinda highlights how huge swathes of western civilizatiin actually shy away from reality.
I knew a guy who used to say “If I ever die…”
I'd say some people have very serious problems with facing and coping with reality and our culture is not really helping them to turn into the right direction.
I’m in nursing training right now, partially due to listening to Nate (who I found via Daniel Schmachtenberger and not the other way around, interestingly enough) and I’m very interested in palliative care and perhaps becoming a death doula. I think we’re in for a lot of pain and aren’t ready for it.
Dear Cory. I´m so grateful to you for saying these things out loud, especially from your position. I hope your message reaches and sinks in with people far and wide. Climate science too often doesn´t consider the interplay between the biosphere and the other Earth systems, which is really frustrating to biologists, ecologists and the likes. We did our PhDs at Otago University at the same time, but I had lost sight of you.. congrats on your amazingly prolific career. More of this, Nate, we need to hear what´s really going on and what´s likely to be in the pipeline, or else we tend to downplay the severity and urgency of the situation.
For every 1 human baby born today, there are 570+ other babies born onto farms to use resources and be prematurely killed.
925 million humans (1 in 9) suffer from hunger, yet 80 billion unnaturally bred animals on farms are given enough human edible food that could support 4 billion humans directly. -University of Minnesota
Nate, you continue to bring on guests who combine both head and heart, in stunningly powerful ways. Corey Bradshaw is a perfect example of a brilliant scientist with a huge heart, and perspectives that are both sobering and paradoxically inspiring at the same time. For me, the only kind of hope that works, is intelligent hope. Hope that considers the facts, the deep and beautiful mysteries, together with what is actually possible.
I'm reminded of a brilliant poet, Wendell Berry who famously said:
"When despair for the world grows in me
and I wake in the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children’s lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water..."
Lastly, I am totally down with Corey's 3 practical suggestions: ...reduce child mortality, get rid of public companies, and make political donations illegal... (Let these three, be...)
Thank you Nate. It's refreshing to listen to like minded people. Corey is fantastic. I am also an older white man from a rich country. About 15 or 20 years older than you two. But, I am not wealthy or intellectual. In fact I have a severe learning disability and I have been in the labor force for most of my life. I think you under estimate people like me. We are actually more open to the fact that mankind has screwed up. Maybe you could take a few steps down the ladder and target people that are less educated but, more likely to accept the situation. Most highly educated people are profit driven and are insulted by everything you speak of. Hourly wage folks understand we are all getting screwed 😅
You give me hope, brother.
Deeply appreciate you comment. Blessings from a white, male latinamerican (Bolivian/Austrian).
thank you for saying that... it can be easy to forget about how many smart caring wonderful people there really are on this planet.... these things need to be talked about. the more people that know, the better chance we have of surviving
One more wage slave here, who agrees with you.
That's an excellent point. The people who have the least to lose (perceptively) are probably going to be more open to this information and more inclined to share it.
Thank you Nate, for your persistant curiosity. This is so important.
Thanks, I remembered the human population growth curves were not affected by war & pandemics, a counterintuitive; this time, I heard how it works in reality.
This is the topic no one wants to address. The only podcast who deal with this topic is overpopulation podcast.
Billionaires, like Elon Musk, are pursing the opposite strategy. They keep saying the biggest enemy is 'population collapse', and are fighting to expand the human population. Their theory has become widely accepted. Many nations are now pursuing programs to increase birthrates to protect their individual economies. It seems counterproductive.
It's one of many topics that people in government positions etc. generally don't want to address, but it has been addressed by many. Generally accepted views are always at least decades or sometimes centuries lagging behind the frontier of knowledge and wisdom. Too bad governments generally have to please the ignorant majority, so they have to lag behind too in their views, or they'll get no votes.
Yeah, it's the ultimate taboo, most unfortunately.
The government issues driver's licenses. They need to issue birth licenses. 🙄
@@Steve-m8s Or at the very least stop paying people to have children.
Finally, you are mentioning the unmentionable. Thanks
This. I have been bugging him to confront this issue for over a year.
Thank you Nate and Corey, my heartfelt gratitude for this episode's insights on the rapid decline in biodiversity and the impact of human overpopulation (boom = bust).
Corey, your analysis on how the Earth’s carrying capacity has been exceeded, and the dire consequences of continued overconsumption, was both enlightening and sobering. As you noted, “Even if we live in a completely eco-friendly way and have very low per capita consumption... we will still take resources until they’re gone.” This stark truth shows the necessity for immediate and substantial efforts to reduce our ecological footprint and to exist within planetary boundaries.
Nate, your ability to facilitate such interesting and deep conversations and bring these critical topics to the forefront is needed. The discussion around the domino effect of species loss and its impact on the biosphere highlights the interconnectedness of our actions and the ecosystems health. As Corey mentioned, “We’re already seeing signs that the sixth mass extinction is underway,” which serves as a powerful call to action for all of us.
Regarding Donella Meadows’ work on leverage points, I found several key points from her article highly relevant to our current socio-environmental challenges:
Meadows stressed the importance of shifting our underlying paradigms to effect real change. She noted, “The shared idea in the minds of society, the great big unstated assumptions... constitute that society’s paradigm, or deepest set of beliefs about how the world works”. This suggests there is an immense influence of collective beliefs and assumptions on shaping societal behaviours and structures. It highlights that to enact significant and lasting change, it's essential to challenge and shift these deep-seated paradigms. By altering the foundational beliefs that drive our actions, we can nature a the future we can envisage in our wisest of moments.
Meadows highlighted the importance of Changing the goals of a system as a powerful leverage point. By redefining the ultimate objectives that guide system behaviour, we can fundamentally alter how the system operates and its outcomes. For example, shifting from a goal of economic growth to one of sustainability (not sustainable growth, or sustainable development) can redirect resources and efforts towards desired future scenarios.
Your discussion touched on these principles, which inspires me to take actions within my community, to both challenge the business as usual paradigm and to offer alternative frameworks and narratives to strengthen neural networks that make the new paradigm that much more attainable. Thank you both for providing such a rich discussion.
As goals, why settle for "sustainability"? I propose health, wholeness, the healed, hale and the holy -- etymologically from one root. We seem to be blind to the obvious.
It would be fascinating to hear a roundtable discussion between you, Bradshaw, Bill Rees and Tom Murphy, Nate.
I'd gladly add to the list Guy McPherson.
Ive never really seen anyone add significantly to the basic observations on overpopulation that almost anyone with a basic HS science education can make.
This was the best interview about the subject I have seen. Thank you for making it, both of you
Thank you Nate for that interview. In my opinion, Corey articulated ecological, population, economic and political summaries that were amazingly clear, scientifically grounded, and ethically framed - of the 45-50 TGSs I have watched, his "maps" of the terrain were the best for my purposes - like my generation's paper topo maps - drawings of the terrain, not successive pixelations of the view. I was flatout gobsmacked. Thank you both.
Perhaps the top podcast of The Great Simplification yet. I love taking the Deep Time, Big Picture perspective. It is fascinating! And I have no illusions that our species is so special, to the contrary.
Great honest chat about the biggest issue our species fast. Too damn many of us - like a horde of locusts that consume food, minerals, plants life , soil etc. Will be listening a second time soon. Thanks Nate for a fascinating guest and education
Congratulations for getting that core issue, that deal breaker of all deal breakers that needs to be understood on a planetary scale, but gets the scantest of discussion.
The behaviours are what disheartens me the most.
A true Rat Race, only worse. One look at the behaviours of 'israel', being fully funded by the USA and supported by major nations, at the political level, I think guarantees the dismal fate of humanity.
We do not deserve to exist. Look at what we do. What we fail to stop. It is so shameful.
TGS being prefaced with a triggerwarning, makes me long for the days when my ignorance was omnipresent and the feeling of bliss glorious. I am undecided yet which feels worse - then, now or the combination of both?
The fact that trigger warnings are given is a statement on a society which is "entitled" to always have good feelz. With that frame of mind I can not see a healthy smooth transition to civilisational trauma to come can be realised. It seems that a trail of tears is our future for our too easily triggered helicoptered pampered population. We breed victims today instead of resilient people.
Wow. Just wow. Every TGS interview is five star quality and urgency in my book. But this one , with the key points made by Corey, especially the three top priorities he outlines including his magic wand answer, put this in the top three all-time interview episodes.
Excellent! More context and new perspectives increases our understanding. Slowing the inevitable is worth doing.
Why are we talking about replacement rate? Don't we need to shrink and not maintain a population level that is currently causing climate and ecosystem destruction?
Exactly 💯
Pollution and ecosystem destruction? Yes. Climate change? F no. We are coming out of the last ice age. Of course things are going to warm on their own. Co2 is a good thing btw, if you want plants to grow and food to eat.
Quit buying the propaganda meant to eliminate you.
Exactly!
I think a slower population decline will maybe make a bend not break scenario?
Technically, we have more than enough resources to maintain a population 3x what it is now.
The problem isn't resource shortage. Wealth and resource distribution and systematic corruption is the problem.
We've lost our purpose in favour of materialistic consumerism. We are nothing but money farms for the elite.
It's a topic that must be addressed, Nate.
An absolutely great discussion! Thank u both!
great conversation. recognizing corporations as the dark triad monstrosities that they are. 'stock markets are the single worst invention of humankind'
Ive not invested because I felt it was the embodiment of ‘Money is the Root of all Evil’ it’s just never looked right too me, just legalized gambling 😢
@@pinchebruha405 Same with investing in gold or silver: the worst hard rock mining is for gold, silver, uranium. Don't support any of these toxic INDUSTRIAL systems. On an already collapsing biosphere, the least we can do!
we need revolution now! And look at that, there is already a manual for this task right here for extra fun: www.files.ethz.ch/isn/126900/8008_FDTD.pdf
I am from British Columbia and absolutely concur with his analysis that trappers had a vested interest in maintaining natural habitat. It was a huge mistake killing the Canadian fur trade because it removed trappers from the land leaving it wide open to industrial exploitation. It is a pattern repeated again and again, remove from the land those that earn their life from the land so that industrial exploitation has free reign.
the first military fort in my area - the men who built it were eating six pounds of meat a day!! They quickly extirpated the local wildlife - relying on the native hunters to supply the meat. The fur trade devolved to lower value animals - and the native hunters were finally forced to eat muskrats. Northwest Fur company for James Jacob Astor was based on definitely over-exploiting the wildlife with alcohol used to destroy local standards of respecting wildlife.
How did removing trappers that would not have been able to supply current humanity leave it open for industrial exploitation, businesses that we are the customers of?
The word Forest is derived from an old Latin term meaning area set apart for harvest from nature. Mostly that would be hunting, but also that "forest" could be used to fatten pigs on acorns and nuts. The local noble man would own the rights and license whoever could come to hunt or feed farm animals.
Stands of trees that fits not have this kind of protection, would be overexploited, become craggy and disappear.
That's why Forest in the long term become synonymous with large stand of trees. There wouldn't be any other woods with big trees left.
Reckon the same will happen with all nature areas that have no formal terms of protection - in particular, in the Global South
This was absolutely fantatsic. Pleaase get Tom Murphy and Bill Rees back on.
Never thought I’d say I’m glad I’m 71. Nothing I didn’t know or already assume from this podcast. I’ve simplified my life and take it day by day.
Or you could fly to Africa to enjoy their hundreds of millions needing food assistance with some 30 million facing starvation. spice things up a bit.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 can you imagine how much worse it’s going to get for those people?
@@davehendricks4824 yeah I visited the most traditional Berber village in Morocco in 1997 - they just gone one light bulb per adobe house for a couple hours of electricity each night. Otherwise - totally self-reliant using humanure composting to grow wheat and vegetables in the desert for thousands of years!! Now Morocco and Spain have severe drought and the famine will kick in fast. They think rain harvesting will save them? Tragic. All our high-tech freedom has caused Mother Nature to take revenge - unleashing the 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane in the world's largest ocean shelf while the scientists wax nostalgic.
another great guest another brilliant interview
So,so relevant,the exchange at the hour mark. I’ve felt it(as I’m sure many others have) for years,how to emotionally handle the doom of our collective malaise)..truly a pertinent topic. Thanks
Thanks guys. Totally on target on need for women's health and education. Plenty of my African women friends do not want huge families, but it can be culturally hard to pull that off due to family pressures from husband and parents. Also, felt encouraged by the message to do what you can to reduce the demise of life.
Excellent discussion. Unlike what you propose, Nate, the knowing is hugely beneficial for me. It has helped change my perspective on the world and my own life and how I spend my time. Would you tell someone with terminal cancer they have cancer if there was absolutely nothing that could be done for it? Of course! We all have the right to face the truth if we are willing. I am not a believer in lying to people in order to keep the populace orderly.
Hi Nate, thanks for this chat (as a fellow Aussie it was nice to hear such a validating perspective which is so rare in this country).
For the population round table please consider Nandita Bajaj - an eloquent university professor and podcaster like yourself 👍
+1 for Nandita Bajaj
I'm a lay person who understands the gravity of what's happening, an people. Wonder why I'm just skeptic that humanity will change.....it's difficult not allowing depression to overwhelm you, anyways great discussion thank you !
Humans. Quantity up.
Quality down. Enjoy what you can because our fate is sealed.
the incredible unbelievable delicate balance in such mind boggling complexity is jaw dropping to reflect on - how the hell did all of this come together?
Time, time, time and feedback loops.
Here in the US, we humans are paving over farmlands and wildlands at ever faster and faster rates! Our cities sprawl across ever bigger swaths of the landscape. And, we are using more and more resources, so the ecological footprints of our cities, the amount of farmland and forests grazing land and fish habitat grow bigger every year.
But I was told by former girlfriends that the human population was not in overshoot ...ask most woman of child bearing years
1% of the area of the earth is considered built up, the production of cement sure but cities per se over farmland is not the issue.
There is the same amount of energy in a tank of diesel than my entire electrical consumption over an Australian summer, actually 3.2 months, with the air con going 24/7. Driving and our consumption of oil, that all our lives revolve around is. Going for a Sunday drive does far more damage than people seem to realise.
A person could live off grid and if they drive to the city or get their goods delivered they are doing worse than the people who live in the city and walk to the market.
Fabulous interview with Corey Bradshaw. Reducing child mortality(a revelation), educating women, ending corporations, stock exchanges and political donations, making family planning and contraception widely available to get our population down to around two billion around mid 1900 numbers in one century without human caused and natural disasters would make life great for all life. I like to say, there is no poverty in a healthy ecosystem. Thanks for a most important interview. BTW, Elon and CEOs want population growth not only for their economic growth but also for cheaper labor.
Plus Elon would want more people to populate Mars 😵💫
reform per your list will never happen. Tragedy of the Commons.
overpopulation will get worse until there is die off. Paul Ehrlich etc suggested 2 billion humans was a sustainable limit which was estimated to be the world population ~ 1970.
Thanks for this. The hard truth is why i follow your channel & podcast.
I'd push the button. People may be full of worry already, but you can only worry about so much at a time. Better to be worried about the reality of global heating and extinction than things that don't matter nearly as much.
"The worst thing that ever occurred was the creation of the stock market" - yes! Another excellent episode. Thank you.
Please get Corey Bradshaw back, don't forget!!!
In my experience, the problem of population is the hardest sell for most people. Even people who know about how some invasive species can decimate ecosystems. They just don’t want to consider the possibility that they shouldn’t have so many kids, or consume at will.
I'm going to ponder that over a bowl of chocolate ice cream.
Humans are the original invasive feral species. It's sad that even environmentalists do not see humans as part of the eco system as a free floating detached species.
Look around yourself. How many people have two kids or more. I bet not many, unless you live in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The demographic crisis that we are fast approaching is far more serious for the humankind than the ecological problems.
@@manichaean1888 Nothing is more important than the ecological problems. We can’t live without a functioning ecosystem. The infinite growth model that is capitalism is not a sustainable long term plan. Things are going to change, whether the economists like it or not. You’ve got bigger things to worry about than some supposed demographic crisis.
@@Heavilymoderated Without humans, the ecology will be much better, on that I agree. Does it worth it... I doubt.
This is one of the very best discussions ever on this podcast, on this topic. I’m going to listen again.
I was surprised to hear talk about the fairly distant future: 100(s) of years or so. My sources anticipate major collapse of civilization and human life in decades. When you take atmospheric science, feedback loops, and the exponential function into consideration it seems that we could witness it all going down ourselves, in this current lifetime. Buckle up! Hang on to your hats!
Nat's pronunciation of Flinders's Uni quite amusing, as an Adelaide resident myself.
The fact that trigger warnings have to issued because some point of view "may hurt our feelz" is a sad indictment of our society. In the approach to civilisational collapse it is imperative that stoicism be taught in school at all level and that we cease rewarding and encouraging entitlement and victimhood.
This was a very good episode. Got to have him back
Y’all, I’m so far down the rabbit hole on this, that I’ve become a total dysfunctional mess. I cry almost daily. I don’t know how to process any of this, or stomach it. So much grief. I’ve lost people-I’ve felt personal grief-but this seems so different. How do I get out of bed and be present for my life and the lives of friends and family? I simply don’t know how.
It can be so hard to feel the grief without falling into despair. I found local, super small scale action to be what helps me. Something I have control over. Planting one seed. Doing one small good deed for a neighbour.
I agree.@@EmmaSolomano
@@dereksnyder_4244 seems banned from commenting on channel. But worth a last try here in your case.
♡World is not Ending♡
Era of Weedy Species
of Impermanence
not of the 《Bear Eagle Wolf 》
The immensity of collective human impact on this paradise planet and all life on it is overwhelming to any who even begin to look. As individuals, what can we do? I cope only by 'doing things' that are within my realm of influence. I think of it like this- Humans have been the agents of destruction, instead, become students of Life. The energy of 'Life' is to grow and reproduce. A single tree has the potential to set seed for hundreds more. In its lifetime, it is home to thousands of insects, birds, micro-organisms, it changes the temperature, wind direction, soil type, water holding capacity etc. If you only plant one tree, you have set in motion the future growth of possibly millions of life forms- a small action echoing into eternity.
Great guest. Mirrors my own understanding of our situation.
There is no way out. It has been obvious to people long back in the 1960's that the planet was a limited resource. Many of us have been fighting to change the direction of progress as long as we have been alive. It has been gut wrenching watching every bit of deep ecosystem develop into places humans could access and ruin
What a fascinating discussion. I look forward to the Round Table.
THANK YOU - @Team for having this important conversation. Catastrophe is unavoidable. In fact, it is already here. Yes - empower women everywhere! - every child not born is one that neither contributes to #collapse, nor suffers from it. Everybody has the right to know - #TalkCollapse
All-in-all, excellent talk. Cory is on the right track.
I so like be hearing truth spoken. It’s a refreshing
Exactly. This show has had nothing but hopium peddlers for the last 6 months.
@j85grim4 I like the opium peddlers too 🧘🏻♀️ 🕉
Excellent! Tell it like it is. I have been peaching this for years and on one will listen.
How did cats come ahead of humans as the most destructive invasive species ? We are species who introduced the cats!
Cats were domesticated 10 or so thousand years ago, we didn't invent cats, they have been around 10-12 million years.
Cats being carnivorous mammals that can have three litters a year with up to 12 kittens, average being four so 12 a year is different to humans.
Amazingly informative discussion. Thanks Nate!
Thank you guys!
Thank you both very much for speaking the truth out loud. 💔👣🫂👣
This is such a difficult topic, it's essential to tread carefully. Not for fear of triggering emotions, but for fear of utilitarian "solutions" to this issue. It's very easy to end up in Dystopia by trying to solve this problem using our left hemisphere, as McGilchrist would say.
I prefer to know the truth of our predicament no matter how dark or foreboding. That isn't true of many people but their feelings should not take precedence over biophysical reality. If you were a passenger in a car that was careening into an obvious accident, you would at least try to communicate that fact to the driver. Their ability to maintain cheerful optimism would not be your primary concern.
Excellent. Very informative video. Thank you, from Brazil.
Too many humans, not enough Planet.
Planets don't bargain.
In my opinion it is our systems not humans.
The lawn is the worlds largest irrigated crop, that we water with filtered water, fertilise and trim with a fossil fuel machine, so it looks nice..
@@antonyjh1234 Not humans? Humans, whose fundamental behaviors haven't changed much for millennia?
@@TheGhungFu Humans are products of their environment, just like any other creature, and if system change was implemented would you blame or congratulate them? I think blaming humans for being humans is defeatist, it makes people think there is nothing we can do as this is the way it's always been instead of looking forward to what is possible.
@@antonyjh1234 Yup, overpopulation is secondary to our "civilised" way of living. It's characterised by obscene levesl of energy throughput and toxic levels of consumption. We in "first world" countries live as if there are 5-10 biospheres, and the only one here, is in collapse at rates never seen before. As pointed out by Corey and Nate right here!
WCASAFU
(We "civilised" are soooooooo absolutely f**ked up!)
@@antonyjh1234Here we go...an apologist for humans !!
Visited Gaza lately ?
Done a tour of the 'israeli' torture Camps at all ?
Blaming it on "grass"
How pathetically ignorant.
An excellent episode with a great guest.
There's a major issue that comes with a reducing population beyond capitalist profits. The pension/social security needs of a country is met by its current workers through taxes. If we have more people of pensionable age, and less younger people, a larger slice of the governmental pension/social payments burden falls on each worker. So you either have to tax people far more, or let your old people die. This is a massive issue facing all developed countries that I don't really hear anyone talking about.
Canada pioneers the MAID program. Netherlands and hear Ireland hot on heels
There is so much tax money going to fund war mongers, and bureaucrats. Divert the money where it's needed instead of wasting it. The US alone spends a trillion tax dollars on war. It's no secret.
I replied on this but YT re moved my comment. The internet is so controlled
@@DrSmooth2000Its disgusting.
Thank you! We need to hear this truth. Thank you Corey Bradshaw.
The healthiest attitude for me is to accept that there is not much I can do. And even as a near vegan, I don’t really want to care about the other cute creatures that Nate seems too concerned about. There is not enough bandwidth in anyone to include everything it even a small portion of what is ailing our planet. Life ends in death for everyone. I have a few years to live and I didn’t sign up for this. I will use all the energy and resources I need while I am alive and what happens in the distant future doesn’t concern me. Again I want to remind those who are depressed about whatever the future holds: you are not going stop the sun from eventually cooking the earth; nobody is going to be able to stop the next ice age or severe pandemic; and life is too short to cry about what can’t be avoided.
From the perspective of a geographer I think we need to understand that it will become increasingly important for people to regain a sense of "place". The answers are very geographically variable. We may get depressed that we don't have much control over the global situation but we can discover the best ways to live comfortably in our own local environment when we tune out the outside voices and listen to our own "place". There is no one right way. In defense of cats, we need to be all like them and just do our own thing. Diversity equals resilience. No sense bickering over city vs rural, etc. High rises may work someplaces while some places require you to spread out more. If you created a law requiring every new building to be self sufficient in terms of energy, water, and waste you would find out real quick what the environmental limits of any given place are and also spur new inventions. Scaling up is not always the answer. Things can be good with a little imagination.
When Nate asked an example of an invasive species that had a big impact, my first thought was us/humans! thanks for the informative videos...
No other species would think to hate itself
Humans do not scientifically qualify as an invasive species .
We are a native species
@@DrSmooth2000 Truth does not necessarily denote hate…
@@raven5347 truth is a funny word since believe comments here set to auto delete
If was fluke, will ask what truth do you see?
Great interview!! Corey needs to be on again. And Nate, just look at the comments from your fans... people want to hear about this stuff (even though you dont)
Brilliant talk by both gentlemen 👌
Everything will always balance out. To fear things is a waste of time and a waste of what little life we get to enjoy. Be grateful for the time you're given, don't be emotional when it's taken away.
Yep, but you are a big-picture thinker. Most humans are self-important and will not sacrifice any luxury for a future generation, even their own.
@russtaylor2122 I'm OK with that. The earth will be fine. Humans? Not so much. Something will survive, though. That should be interesting.
A person of average intelligence with this knowledge is likely to feel some responsibility to preserve our biodiversity (species & total numbers) where possible, within any practical constraints that might be imposed upon them.
In other words - Don't become too attached to a favourable outcome.
Fear keeps us alive. Don't wallow in it, but don't deny it.
A very sanguine discussion, mind boggling yet worthy of pondering
43:47 Why would we not expect a vast reduction in insects based on the windshield evidence? Millions of grim reaper devices (cars and trucks) at high speed combing the area above roads seems sure to cause a drastic reduction in insect populations over time.
Yes I remember cleaning windshield daily. Now hardly ever have to because of bugs🙀
Also insecticides, bigAg, mining, pharmaceutical runoff, deforestation, dissecation of ponds, lakes, rivers, wetlands, less water, less life...
The percentage of world area that is roadway is 0.3%.
99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is 100klm/62 mile high, the move towards crop foods which require huge amounts of pesticides would be much more detrimental than CO2 as it all stays in this tiny sliver of area. Synthetic fertilisers, herbicides affect groundwater and crops which are virtual deserts for insects are grown in huge tonnages, far more than what we grow for animals.
Insect decimation is linked to pesticides. It's the sole cause.
@@leonstenutz6003 And here in Australia bush fires of the intensity and regularity we are now getting them have decimated our insect population. We lost 60 billion in 2020.
Corey's description of population growth in a high child mortality world is very interesting, competely not what I would have thought.
This is so complex. Its like humanity does not exist in "one" society... it is always a superposition of many societies. And the society we see is the just the one that us pulled to the forefront by our environment.
that's the historical truth. poor farmers have tons of babies for free labor. So the higher the death rate, the higher the population growth rate to replace the loss. Same thing happened right after world war 2.
I'd disagree a bit with Corey Bradshaw and I'll say that it's not cognitive dissonance and an inability to cope with the doom that makes people ignore the climate disaster message. The problem is that the subject is heavily politicized. There is a counter-party which has roughly the same amount of credibility as the party promoting the climate change, that opposes your message and that destabilizes your credibility. The message is not unified and unanimously promoted by everyone in the political specter, it is only that some do this and those that do, have a different political color.
The fact that a healthy part of the representatives of the capitalistic economical sector and BRICS countries (because they argue that the West uses this narrative to further hinder their development and make them depend on renewable technologies which are expensive and they are not ready for but on the other hand they have a lot of oil and gas extracting means and reserves) argue against the climate change narrative and distrust the research data saying that is incomplete or that is manipulation through misreading statistics and they bring they own research to prove you wrong.
The climate change narrative from their perspective is labeled as another way mean to fight the hybrid asymmetrical war and a mean to make their camp miserable. They'll oppose you no matter what.
Until everyone from the climate change group understands the reality, they won't be able to win over people but on the contrary, further lose support.
It's a political problem, not a human idiosyncratic or species' denial mechanism of adaptation.
The message has to be unified and has to come from everyone, the main stream, the political class more involved and with a heavy press communication from governments where they explain in simple terms to all people on all national media channels what it's happening, what we have to do, what measures the governments will take, what changes will be made to the private and economical sector. An overview of the situation and measures required would have to be transmitted weakly (not once in several months like it is now and also very incomplete), people would have to know and UNDERSTAND the changes and the path the government is taking. At this points some measures are being taken in the West but the communication is so poorly that it gives changes for the far-right parties to rise in popularity.
Not the people are the problem, the communication campaign, and the parties in the opposition.
Reckon most people intuitively feel that things may be going of the rails sooner or .. even more soon. They choose not to look into it, but deal with situatiens as they arise.
For the moment, climate change is "only" felt by those that suffer direct hits (be it fire, floods or drought)
The rest only had to pay a bit extra for food inflation. The hard part - it may take another decade, may be two, before the hard serious stuff arises , a couple of worldwide crop failures, 3 500 year floods with in a decade, storm surges eating up land in badly protected areas.
As long as folks aren't hit themselves, they can continue this "after me, the deluge" attitude. Once they are hit, they'll blame politici for not taking qualified measures. As for global South - they can't help having no decent media, but it still is bare bone survival and dealing with circumstances as they arise, as it had been for most of human existence
Great discussion. I have been, without having the scientific foundation to support it, preaching that we will probably survive as a species for a while but we are in for whole lot of hurt along the way. Sad in a way to hear that the science is starting agree but at the same time heartening to hear that others are thinking about this a deep level. Gives some hope that we might be able to mitigate the worst of it. Love the comments about youth. It matches the experience I have had with my children. Just trying to be decent human beings. Thanks for having the courage to confront the cognitive dissonance that has too date held us back. Even when it hurts, the benefits of education outweigh ignorance hands down.
Two reasons Dr. Bradshaw is a too optimistic about the future of life on earth: the aerosol masking effect and the ionizing radiation from the meltdown of every nuclear power plant on the planet. Namaste 😎🦋
Upside of industry dragging desulphurization out for half a century... Termination Shock is in staggered tenths of a degree. Ozone Layer holds 🛡
Lead time to orderly shut down of the nukes is outside my wheelhouse
I do ageee❤
Yes.🌎
@throrth seems Comment deleted so try a short factual point
Aerosol demasking would have been a shock if had all stopped globally in say 1985. Went in stages by industry and country.
Almost over. Not much left to unmask.
Exactly. Aerosol masking is chronically underdiscussed.
OMG, I am mourning already... Not for us humans, who have been so cruel and destructive, but for the rest of the species. I have reduced my consumerism to the bare basics of food and tools I need in my daily life, and that won't matter, but at least it helps my conscience. In my opinion, we deserve what's coming to us.
Oh, and I’m guessing there are a lot of factors missing from the population models like endocrine disrupter chemical exposure etc etc
I've always kind of understood this since being about 12-13 years old (Born 1960). Increasingly distressing for me as you can see it happening around you.
The issue we have with our civilization is that most live under Cassandra's Curse.
This is a sad, ugly, even tragic overview of our future. I'm old and have had to listen to all the decades of denial. So yes, I'm angry ! Please keep true facts flowing . Thanks and...
👍 Rock on 🙂.
Our love for money and things has replaced our connection to nature. It's us. Blaming Africa, India, or China is not helping.
Especially when positing EUGENICS plans to "target fe!ales" (see the dehumanizing racist refusal to consider these as YOUNG WOMEN). That portion of the discussion is entirely disturbing and reprehensible). It's the people in the northern developed countries who are a problem for the planet. It's entirely appropriate that their numbers are decreasing.
two beautiful, clever, curious and caring minds. thank you.
So interesting and beautifully explained
AS a doomer, this was up my alley and made me feel Im right
Great discussion. Truly sad, but important.
I find it quite interesting that there's this common list of academics doing the rounds across many digital platforms. Ok it's a relatively small community overshoot/ecology/climate etc but why do so few academics engage with the general public? Ok sites like resilience have an extensive list to peruse through so maybe it's just a reflection of podcasts. Or are these core individuals not only great communicators but the cream of the crop in their respective fields. I definitely need to read more of Corey's work now that he's successfully vetted TGS high standards of credibility 😉
Very illuminating discussion. More math modellers please. "We've outsourced our wisdom to the market". "Reduce child mortality. Eliminate public companies, and political donations".
“Its intense… trigger warning” now i HAVE to listen 😅
Bucky Fuller pointed out the way to change a system is to create a more attractive system in parallel. The attraction will draw in the needed resources. Fighting produces resistance. Throw a better party and watch what happens.
Of course, it's true that the evolutionary show of life must go on, maybe even after nuclear war. But to me, it's of little consolation. I can't get beyond my own sentimentality for the natural world we have known, and which is hanging on for dear life, despite our behavior. I love the current web of life, as if it were extensions of my own body.
Absolutely great!
I have never heard such brilliance and idiocy together in one place.
I found a lot of his points kind of terrible TBH.
Doomsday Cult comes to mind
There is a well established link between parental education and child mortality. That's important, so Nate you were right education is important
Nate refers to the profit motive in a negative light. It seems to me that profit can be redefined by including nature on the balance sheet. Redefine profit to include ecological impact - positive and negative.
External Costs (Negative Externalities): These are costs imposed on others who are not directly part of the economic transaction. For example, pollution from a factory imposes health costs on the surrounding community, which are not reflected in the factory's production costs.
Yes, if you and in all the externalities in the price *** profit will still work
As ardent says, the external costs of what we do are not factored in at present.
The issue is if we still use money as a ticket to energy with zero controls on the carbon we are in trouble, Ideally in my mind we could change products to have a carbon value and that would change the amount of stuff we buy but profit for profits sake has to come to an end.
@@antonyjh1234 I would like to provide additional insight into the concept of externalities and introduce a related term, "tragedy of the commons." The term "tragedy of the commons," first articulated by William Forster Lloyd in 1833 and later popularized by Garrett Hardin in 1968, formalized the concept within the framework of economics and resource management.
The concept of externalities, which refers to the costs or benefits incurred by third parties not directly involved in an economic transaction, has its origins in the early 19th century. Early economists such as French economist A. A. Cournot in 1838 and British economist Arthur Cecil Pigou in his 1920 work, The Economics of Welfare, explored these ideas. Pigou's formalization of externalities laid the groundwork for understanding their impact on market efficiency and the potential need for corrective measures.
Unfortunately, governments have often allowed industries, including their own, to exploit common resources without accounting for these externalities, resulting in environmental degradation and unfair economic advantages. Such practices, frequently driven by greed and inadequate regulation, have led to widespread pollution and negative consequences for the global population. It is disheartening to see how political and economic systems can perpetuate these issues at the expense of public well-being.
I first encountered these concepts in my first-year economics course in 1977. To claim that the government was unaware of these issues is both illogical and misguided; they were aware but chose to take no action. Blaming major oil companies is misplaced; they are simply responding to market (your and mine) demand.
These concepts ('externalities' and 'tragedy of the commons' ) not only apply to CO2 but all pollution these concept even all to all areas even of the economy including forestry and farming. We have know it has been a problem for years even before these concept were recognized in economics
at 1:13:00 about human pop growth. it was at this moment Nate realised we were f@#ked. jokes aside, the more i learn about biology and evolution the more i realise how modern medicine, increased human carrying capacity from FF and even agricultural revolution fundamentally changed the course of human futures. for a sustainable and healthy biosphere humans ultimately have a choice: to die by the same means as the rest of nature or to improve individual outcomes and result in collective overshoot. the biological drivers that have been so successful to our ancestors will induce us down this path towards overshoot. overcoming negative feedbacks was the fundamental game changer and FF are intricately intertwined with that. by the time negative feedbacks reassert their dominance i fear for what will remain of the rest of nature.
great episode thank you
I've seen many examples of how jaw-droppingly stupid people can be (and I don't even want to exclude myself from that) and deny things that are as obvious as daylight, so these questions are rhetorical:
How did population growth/size ever became a controversial topic when it comes to overshoot, climate change and so on? How can someone acknowledge these are real and not see that an ever increasing population is a main driver of that, to the point it becomes a taboo subject even within the United Nations, and someone writing about it receiving death threats??? It's just so, so, so painfully obvious and easy to understand. More people consume more and produce more waste. How obvious can it be?
It makes me wanna scream in utter frustration.
Exactly 💯
Man still clings to its 'religion' it seems, as if it's at-all representative of reality.
Love the blue piece of art behind Corey
What effect would be attained by adopting an age cut-off for expensive and resource hungry treatments for old people? I understand how contentious this statement is, but while we're talking...
Well if you start there, you might as well talk about forced sterilization. On the long run it will be sufficient to end humans. Thus, no one will accept any of these « solutions » because they will end out humane nature at the moment of the decision. This is a predicament not a problem as stated multiple times Nate. Then no single solution is sufficient. It’s complex and it feels not achievable (sorry if my English is broken, I’m not totally fluent)
Logan‘s Run (1975)
@@dankoepp68 Yes, i must watch that again...
What is considered to be old? Also reminds me of Soylent Green where the old are put to “sleep”.
Nate, an excellent interview that tells it like it is. During the interview there was a brief reference to the work of the IPCC and its understatement of the future risks/challenges we face and it would be really good to have a reality Roundtable on the IPCC models and process to try to understand why this understatement. It would also be good to look at the interaction of fossil fuel interests and the IPCC process, especially the COPs. Profs James Hansen and Kevin Anderson are both critical of the IPCC for various reasons. Leave it with you. Thanks.
I forgot to mention that, given the influence of the IPCC COPs on national governments, it is important to know why the IPCC process and reports are inadequate.